(PC) Reyes v. Flores

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 19, 2019
Docket1:16-cv-00586
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Reyes v. Flores ((PC) Reyes v. Flores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Reyes v. Flores, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABEL P. REYES, No. 1:16-cv-00586-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 14 M. FLORES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 13, 2019, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Plaintiff Abel Reyes 18 (“plaintiff”) appeared telephonically and pro se. Deputy Attorney General Matthew Roman 19 appeared telephonically as counsel for defendant M. Flores, LVN (“defendant”). Having 20 considered the parties’ pretrial statements and their views, the court issues this tentative pretrial 21 order. 22 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant knowingly denied him 24 constitutionally adequate medical treatment and was deliberately indifferent to his serious 25 medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 26 I. JURISDICTION/VENUE 27 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. Jurisdiction is not contested. 28 Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue is not contested. 1 II. JURY 2 Both parties have demanded a jury trial. The jury will consist of seven jurors. 3 III. UNDISPUTED FACTS 4 1. In January 2014, plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran 5 (“CSP-Corcoran”). 6 2. Following a history of treatment for various urinary symptoms, the plaintiff was 7 admitted into the Delano Regional Medical Center for transurethral resection of the prostate 8 (“TURP”) surgery on January 21, 2014. 9 3. Plaintiff was discharged and returned to CSP-Corcoran on January 23, 2014. 10 4. On January 26, 2014, at approximately 7:00 a.m., plaintiff was pushed in his 11 wheelchair to the C window of the 3-B Clinic to obtain his morning medications. Plaintiff told 12 defendant that he was in severe pain and that he had a medical emergency. Defendant stated that 13 it was not a medical emergency and told plaintiff to submit a health care services request form to 14 be seen. 15 5. At approximately 11:30 a.m., plaintiff returned to the 3-B Clinic where he was 16 seen by defendant. Plaintiff told defendant of his continuing pain, and that he was unable to 17 urinate, had thick blood clots come out of his penis, and that he had just had surgery and needed 18 medical attention. Defendant assessed plaintiff and concluded that he did not need immediate 19 medical attention. 20 6. At approximately 3:45 p.m., plaintiff again returned to the 3-B Clinic. At that 21 time, another nurse examined plaintiff and again concluded that he did not require emergency 22 treatment. 23 7. Later that evening, plaintiff was examined in the Acute Care Hospital at CSP- 24 Corcoran by Dr. Julian Kim. 25 8. Afterwards, plaintiff was sent to the Mercy Hospital Emergency Room, where he 26 was examined by Dr. Noor Jaber. Plaintiff had a catheter inserted and was admitted to the 27 hospital. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on January 29, 2014. 28 ///// 1 IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 2 1. Whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s medical needs. 3 2. Whether the plaintiff suffered any later medical complications as a result of the 4 alleged delay in providing him medical care. 5 V. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE 6 The parties have not yet filed motions in limine. The court does not encourage the filing 7 of motions in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the 8 court prior to trial and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the 9 parties at trial. The parties anticipate filing the motions in limine below. Any motions in limine 10 counsel elects to file shall be filed no later than 21 days before trial. Opposition shall be filed no 11 later than 14 days before trial and any replies shall be filed no later than 10 days before trial. 12 Upon receipt of any opposition briefs, the court will notify the parties if it will hear argument on 13 any motions in limine prior to the first day of trial. 14 Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine 15 1. Motion in limine to bar defendant from presenting evidence of or making reference 16 to plaintiff’s criminal history, the criminal history of plaintiff’s witnesses, plaintiff’s history of 17 administrative appeals and litigation unrelated to this instant lawsuit, and any documents not 18 previously disclosed to plaintiff. 19 2. Motion in limine to bar testimony of defendant’s expert witnesses if it is revealed 20 through deposition that their opinions are based in whole or in part on materials that should have 21 been produced during discovery and which were withheld from plaintiff. 22 3. Plaintiff anticipates objecting to defendant’s proposed trial exhibits. 23 Defendant’s Motions in Limine 24 1. Defendant states that he objects to the introduction of testimony by plaintiff 25 including but not limited to, type of treatment, rationale for treatment, and appropriateness of 26 treatment, and causation of subsequent medical conditions. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 VI. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 2 Special factual information pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6) is not applicable to this 3 action. 4 VII. RELIEF SOUGHT 5 Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $300,000.00 and punitive 6 damages in the amount of $100,000.00. 7 VIII. POINTS OF LAW 8 The claims and defenses arise under federal law. All of plaintiff’s claims are brought 9 against defendant M. Flores. 10 1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a cause of action for deliberate 11 indifference to a prisoner’s right to medical care pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. 12 2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for an award of punitive damages. 13 Trial briefs addressing the points of law implicated by these remaining claims shall be 14 filed with this court no later than 7 days before trial in accordance with Local Rule 285. 15 ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOT EXPLICITLY 16 ASSERTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER POINTS OF LAW AT THE TIME IT 17 BECOMES FINAL ARE DISMISSED AND DEEMED WAIVED. 18 IX. ABANDONED ISSUES 19 None. 20 X. WITNESSES 21 Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Defendant’s witnesses shall 22 be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. 23 A. The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose, 24 including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria: 25 (1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the 26 purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at 27 the pretrial conference, or 28 ///// 1 (2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering 2 party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below. 3 B. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, 4 the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of 5 the unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be 6 permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless: 7 (1) The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the 8 discovery cutoff; 9 (2) The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of 10 the witness; 11 (3) If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and 12 (4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony 13 was provided to opposing parties. 14 XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES 15 Joint exhibits are listed in Attachment C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Frank Gonzalez v. William E. Kangas
814 F.2d 1411 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Reyes v. Flores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-reyes-v-flores-caed-2019.